I agree in principle that police ought to show overwhelming force to arrest a potentially violent suspect. Can you please explain why you think police ought to use overwhelming force to search a suspect’s home, when the suspect’s work schedule is predictable and known to the police?
The two are not mutually exclusive. My argument is that SWAT tactics need to be revised to avoid situations like this, AND that when confronting violent suspects, police ought to be able to display overwhelming force.
I don’t necessarily feel the tactics they used were ideal. They undoubtedly used a SWAT team to gain entry because they were searching the home of a person believed to be a violent. Someone suspected of ripping off drug dealers. They don’t come more violent then that.
There were probably detectives ready to move in as soon as the home was secured.
Maybe they wanted to do the search while the suspect was home for a reason they have decided not to divulge. Or maybe they just screwed up.
Look if I was on a jury I would agree: The family should reasonably have known it was police. Or some law enforcement agency.
Knowing that, and deciding to answer the door carrying an assault rifle, was bad decision-making. It got the guy killed. If he yells “Get the hell out of here. I’ve called the police, they’re on their way!” he’s still alive.
But isn’t that kind of monday morning quarterbacking? With the benefit of hindsight, you can say “yeah, he should have realized it was the police,” but in reality the police used tactics deliberately designed to disorient and confuse their target. That stuff might work to subdue a fat real estate broker, but a former marine? How could they have expected anything OTHER than what happened? He did not act unreasonably by brandishing a weapon to meet the armed men invading his home. He may or may not have been a violent criminal, but neither scenario justifies the military-style operation used to carry out a search warrant.
I don’t thik it’s the tactics which need revising. I do think that SWAT has no business showing up in residential neighborhoods and kicking in the door. That’s begging for trouble , and begging to cause problems.
Here’s the thing: SWAT shouldn’t be doing ordinary arrests. You call in SWAt when nobody else can do the job, not because they’re bored and haven’t done anything in the last month. You use a SWAT team when you need one. You don’t “train” SWAT members in live-fire excercises which happen to involve the public. SWAT is for extreme situations where normal police powers don’t suffice. This was never one.
The American drug war has been going for 40 years and has nothing to show for it but a bloated prison population and a militarized police but it’s alright, we’re about to turn that corner. Any decade now.
Let’s not overlook the fact that incidents like the one we’re discussing are probably pretty rare. Reportedly LAPD’s SWAT team is called out several hundred times a year. Multiply that by all the major cities and agencies that have SWAT units and there are undoubtedly tens of thousands of times when a SWAT team is called out.
Not to minimize the tragedy when an innocent person gets killed. (And we actually don’t know that the gentleman in Pima County AZ was innocent.) But the vast majority of these operations seem to go as planned.
Again I see it as a training issue. Given the realities cops face I think these special units are a necessary evil.
The war on drugs is a separate issue, I think. These SWAT units are used for so many kinds of incidents. It just seems so common nowadays for people to barricade themselves with a hostage for any variety of reasons. There’s no doubt in my mind we need these kinds of units.
It’s not a separate issue, it’s the cause of the problem. If a SWAT unit is responding to a hostage situation, they’re not escalating a peaceful situation just to make their jobs easier. They’re also not breaking into the wrong house entirely and killing random innocents - the police cars and armed men tend to make a hostage situation easier to identify than a drug dealer’s house.
Actually the first SWAT team – begun by LAPD around 1968 – wasn’t a part of the War on Drugs but a response to urban rioting and the radical revolutionary movement. Police were called to the scene of incidents and/or trying to make arrests and being confronted by groups armed with automatic weapons. The cops meantime only had .38 caliber handguns.
Police commanders said that not only were officers clearly outgunned, they weren’t effective. They couldn’t protect the public in these encounters. The SWAT team was a response to that problem.
Not long after LAPD created their SWAT team they were called to a scene where officers had cornered heavily armed members of the Black Panthers. There was a lot of gunfire exchanged but eventually the arrests were made and no one was seriously hurt.
I agree there is something unsettling about police departments having paramilitary style units but – despite the occasional disasters – I think they’re a necessary evil.
I don’t even think they’re a necessary evil. A SWAT team is a useful tool that has a legitimate purpose in law enforcement. Like tear gas, a taser or a gun, the tool may be abused or misused but that doesn’t make it any less a useful or legitimate tool.
I don’t have time to read the entire Cato Institute paper but in the introduction (quoted above) it says 40,000 raids per year. That’s an awful lot of raids. So on a percentage basis how many times is an innocent person physically harmed?
I know what you’re going to say and I agree. One innocent person is too many. But I agree with the previous poster, and it’s my conclusion as well, it’s a tactic law enforcement needs.
I almost hate to write this it but I think it is necessary for these units to exist. I don’t see much alternative.
You misrepresent both my and Odesio’s arguments. Responding to a violent incident like a hostage situation with sufficient force to contain it is not the same tactic as creating violent incidents by having heavily armed men breaking into houses over drugs.
I can see we’re never going to agree, but while I’m sure there are exceptions, I think the protocol is, they don’t use SWAT teams to do drug raids unless they have reason to believe the suspect(s) are armed and have a record for violence.
I’m fully aware there are exceptions, but to me that is more a training issue than a protocol issue.
No, I think he got my statement correct. I’m sure there are times where having the SWAT team be the ones knocking on the door makes sense. I just want them to be a little more careful about how they choose to use the SWAT team.